History and current status of the survivorship care program at the University of California, Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCLA JCCC).

As one of the first comprehensive cancer centers to receive a designation from the National Cancer Institute, the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA Health has served as a leader in survivorship research for three decades. A clinical survivorship program for childhood cancer survivors was established in the early 2000s as this became a standard of care in pediatric oncology. However, it was not until receipt of external funding and the establishment of a Survivorship Center of Excellence in 2006 that clinical services were expanded to include adult cancer survivors, as well as survivorship care delivery research in the community and at affiliated clinical sites. When this funding ended, there was limited institutional support for expansion of the program, and so the clinical programs did not develop further. Recently, there has been renewed interest in obtaining Commission on Cancer accreditation, and this has prompted an institutional assessment of survivorship care to inform future activities for system-wide program development. As oncology care expands throughout a large regional health system network, the future survivorship program will need to serve as a common resource for the entire health system by providing a repository of specialized services and resources as well as standard processes and pathways for a cohesive approach to care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There are many challenges to development and sustainment of cancer survivorship programs, even in NCI-designated comprehensive cancers. As the delivery of cancer care services expands and becomes more integrated in large health care systems, innovative strategies are needed to ensure delivery of tailored care to cancer survivors through acute treatment and beyond.

Implementing a Tailored Psychosocial Distress Screening Protocol in a Head and Neck Cancer Program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Psychosocial distress is common among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) and is associated with poorer quality of life and clinical outcomes. Despite these risks, distress screening is not widely implemented in HNC care. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of psychosocial distress and its related factors in routine care of patients with HNC. METHODS: Data from medical records between September 2017 and March 2020 were analyzed. Psychosocial distress was measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer (DT), and a modified HNC-specific problem list; depression and anxiety were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were conducted to report prevalence of distress, depression and anxiety, and factors associated with clinical distress. Implementation outcomes, including rates of referrals and follow-up for distressed patients, are also reported. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty seven HNC patients completed the questionnaire (age 64.3 ± 14.9 years), with a mean distress score of 4.51 ± 3.35. Of those, 57% (n = 163) reported clinical distress (DT ≥ 4). Pain (odds ratio [OR] = 3.31, 95% CI = 1.75-6.26), fatigue (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.1.7-5.05), anxiety (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.30-2.05), and depression (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04-2.18) were significantly associated with clinical distress (P < .05). Of patients identified as distressed, 79% received same-day psychosocial evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical distress was identified in 57% of patients who completed the questionnaire, suggesting that an ultra-brief psychosocial screening protocol can be implemented in routine ambulatory oncology care, and identifies patients whose distress might otherwise go unrecognized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 132:1600-1608, 2022.

Health Care Providers' Trusted Sources for Information About COVID-19 Vaccines: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Information and opinions shared by health care providers can affect patient vaccination decisions, but little is known about who health care providers themselves trust for information in the context of new COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate which sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines are trusted by health care providers and how they communicate this information to patients. METHODS: This mixed methods study involved a one-time, web-based survey of health care providers and qualitative interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Health care providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, nurses) were recruited from an integrated health system in Southern California using voluntary response sampling, with follow-up interviews with providers who either accepted or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The outcome was the type of information sources that respondents reported trusting for information about COVID-19 vaccines. Bivariate tests were used to compare trusted information sources by provider type; thematic analysis was used to explore perspectives about vaccine information and communicating with patients about vaccines. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2948 providers, of whom 91% (n=2683) responded that they had received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The most frequently trusted source of COVID-19 vaccine information was government agencies (n=2513, 84.2%); the least frequently trusted source was social media (n=691, 9.5%). More physicians trusted government agencies (n=1226, 93%) than nurses (n=927, 78%) or pharmacists (n=203, 78%; P<.001), and more physicians trusted their employer (n=1115, 84%) than advanced practice providers (n=95, 67%) and nurses (n=759, 64%; P=.002). Qualitative themes (n=32 participants) about trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information were identified: processing new COVID-19 information in a health care work context likened to a "war zone" during the pandemic and communicating information to patients. Some providers were hesitant to recommend vaccines to pregnant people and groups they perceived to be at low risk for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have stronger trust in government sources and their employers for information about COVID-19 vaccines compared with nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. Strategies such as role modeling, tailored messaging, or talking points with standard language may help providers to communicate accurate COVID-19 vaccine information to patients, and these strategies may also be used with providers with lower levels of trust in reputable information sources.